SHOULD CABLE CARRY LOCAL STATIONS?

THE HARTFORD COURANT

Television broadcasters have won what may prove a temporary victory in a U.S. Supreme Court decision last month upholding the rule that cable systems must carry local stations.

Cable has become the dominant medium in television, with some 60 percent of homes nationally wired. But the grip that cable systems have may loosen when Rupert Murdoch's Sky satellite service gets under way.

For the time being, any cable company will have to devote as much as a third of its channels to retransmitting local telecasts. Although subscribers would demand major stations' programming even without a government requirement, the decision probably ensures the financial health of marginal local TV stations, at least for now.

The deciding voice in a 5-4 ruling was Justice Stephen G. Breyer's. He argued that Congress could constitutionally order the must-carry rule to prop up those marginal stations, to ensure "a rich mix of over-the-air programming" for the 40 percent of Americans who do not have cable.

The other side of that coin is that cable subscribers may be denied the potential "rich mix" if there are too many local broadcasters claiming limited cable space. C-SPAN, which carries congressional proceedings and other public events, has lost 3.5 million subscribers since the must-carry rule took effect in 1992.

The minority opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor looked ahead, arguing that "the growing use of direct-broadcast satellite television . . . tends to undercut the notion that cable operators have an inevitable monopoly over video services entering households."

Mr. Murdoch must still win a license from Congress for his proposed satellite service, and presumably an exemption from the must-carry rule. His satellites, with 500 channels available, could not physically carry all 1,544 local broadcast stations within their range.

It is hard to imagine not licensing a satellite service that would bring new choices to millions of rural homes not served by cable. But it is equally hard to imagine giving satellite services an advantage over land-bound cable competitors. Now that the court has said Congress may constitutionally impose its must-carry rule, the lawmakers may soon be forced to reconsider their edict.

The rule is not so much a First Amendment issue -- is there a governmental interest important enough to burden cable operators' freedom of speech? -- as one of economics. It should be the marketplace, not federal regulators, that decides what programming people can receive.